MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2998225722 · doi:10.1007/s40894-019-00129-7

Studies on the Acculturation of Young Refugees in the Educational Domain: A Scoping Review of Research and Methods

2020· review· en· W2998225722 on OpenAlexaff
Débora B. Maehler, Steffen Pötzschke, Howard Ramos, Paul Pritchard, Johanna Fleckenstein

Bibliographic record

VenueAdolescent Research Review · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation and experiences of immigrants and refugees
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoDalhousie University
FundersJacobs Foundation
KeywordsRefugeeAcculturationResidenceSample (material)PsychologyImmigrationCountry of originDevelopmental psychologyPolitical scienceSociologyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Given that children and adolescents constitute a growing and significant share of forced migrants worldwide, assessing the state of research on and the methods used to study the acculturation of this group is both timely and essential. The acculturation of refugee children and adolescents in host countries occurs primarily within educational institutions and through the acquisition of the language of the new host society. This scoping review of peer-reviewed journal articles published between 1987 and 2016 (N = 192 eligible studies) examined the extent to which individual-level factors (e.g., gender, age) and contextual factors (e.g., country of residence) emphasized by acculturation models have been considered in research involving young refugees in the educational domain. In addition, the research designs and methods applied in these studies were evaluated, and content analysis was performed to examine whether individual-level factors considered in the sample of studies were related to educational outcomes of young refugees. Overall, the review revealed that very few studies provided adequate information on sample composition, or considered individual and contextual factors, thus leaving crucial gaps in the knowledge about the acculturation of young refugees. Guidelines for future research are proposed to remedy the identified research deficits.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.046
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.985
Threshold uncertainty score0.081

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.046
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.004
Bibliometrics0.0150.015
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.487
GPT teacher head0.664
Teacher spread0.176 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
DomainMethods
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdolescent Research ReviewSame topicEducation and experiences of immigrants and refugeesFrench-language works237,207